Def. a "characteristic or property that particular things have in common"[2] is called a universal.

"When we examine common words, we find that, broadly speaking, proper names stand for particulars, while other substantives, adjectives, prepositions, and verbs stand for universals."[3]

Such words as "entity", "object", "thing", and perhaps "body", words "connoting universal properties, ... constitute the very highest genus or "summum genus"" of a classification of universals.[4] To propose a definition for say a plant whose flowers open at dawn on a warm day to be pollinated during the day time using the word "thing", "entity", "object", or "body" seems too general and is.

To help with definitions, their meanings and intents, there is the learning resource theory of definition.

Def. a thing that represents or stands for something else is called a symbol.

“[D]efinitions are always of symbols, for only symbols have meanings for definitions to explain.”[4] A term can be one or more of a set of symbols such as words, phrases, letter designations, or any already used symbol or new symbol.

In the theory of definition, “the symbol being defined is called the definiendum, and the symbol or set of symbols used to explain the meaning of the definiendum is called the definiens.”[4] “The definiens is not the meaning of the definiendum, but another symbol or group of symbols which, according to the definition, has the same meaning as the definiendum.”[4]

"Cognitive semantics is part of the cognitive linguistics movement. Semantics is the study of meaning. Cognitive semantics holds that language is part of a more general human cognitive ability, can therefore only describe the world as it is organised within people's conceptual spaces.[6] It is implicit that there is some difference between this conceptual world and the real world. The main tenets of cognitive semantics are:

that grammar is a way of expressing the speaker's concept of the world;

that knowledge of language is acquired and contextual;

that the ability to use language draws upon general cognitive resources and not a special language module.[6]"[7]

Def. "basic systems of fundamental social cognitions and organizing the attitudes and other social representations shared by members of groups" are called ideologies.[8]

"[I]deologies have at the same time been defined in sociological or socio-economic terms, and usually related to groups, group positions and interests or group conflicts such as class, gender or 'race' struggles, and hence to social power and dominance as well as their obfuscation and legitimation."[8]

"'[D]ominant ideologies', in the exclusive sense of ideologies of a 'dominant' group, or ideologies imposed by a dominant group, are special cases of ideology, and not characteristic of all ideologies".[8] "[W]e assume that not only dominant groups, but also dominated groups have ideologies that control their self-identification, goals and actions."[8]

"[T]he level of meaning and reference plays a central role" in discourse.[8] "Cognitive representations of attitudes and models may directly map onto semantic representations".[8] "[I]t is largely through meaning that ... syntax, phonology or graphical structures, are affected by ideology"[8].

"Discourse semantics [deals with] conceptual meanings or intensions ... [and] referents or extensions, as is the case for formal and philosophical semantics"[8].

Per the learning resource, semantics in the brain: "The study of semantics in the brain is a branch of psycholinguistics that incorporates the understanding of semantics and the neurological structures that are involved.".

From the learning resource on theory-based semantics: "Theory-based semantics is a phrase used by Richard L. Ballard to describe knowledge representations that are based on the premise that the binding element of human thought is "theory," and that theory constrains the meaning of concepts, ideas and thought patterns according to their associative relationships.".

Semantics "provides the rules for interpreting the syntax which do not provide the meaning directly but constrains the possible interpretations of what is declared."[11]

On the basis of dictionary definitions, what is the difference between a 'body', an 'entity', an 'object', a 'thing', and a 'phenomenon'?

The categories for synonymy and most common usage place 'body' in "3. SUBSTANTIALITY"[10], 'entity' in the same, 'object' in "651. INTENTION"[10], 'thing' in "3. SUBSTANTIALITY"[10], and 'phenomenon' in "918. WONDER"[10]. A slightly less common use of 'phenomenon' is in category "150. EVENTUALITY"[10]. For the word 'object' a slightly less common or popular meaning is in category "543. MEANING"[10]. The closest category of meaning or synonymy for 'object' to category 1. is category "375. MATERIALITY"[10].

Of each of these words, 'entity' uses the word 'existence', category "1. EXISTENCE"[10] in each definition. 'Entity' may be thought of as the most general of these terms because its meanings are the closest to category 1. The farthest from category 1. on the basis of conceptual meaning and synonymy is the word 'object' in category 375. A tentative order is 'entity' > 'phenomenon' > 'object' by generalness, or by preciseness (perhaps more description is needed beyond only existence) 'object' > 'phenomenon' > 'entity'.

'Thing' (category 3.) has the word 'entity' in three of four meanings and 'object' in the fourth. The second most popular meaning of 'thing' is in category 375.

'Body' (category 3.) has 'mass' and is closer to 'substantiality' in common usage than 'thing', and neither word has a synonym closer in meaning to 'existence'. The second most common meaning of 'body' is category "203. BREADTH, THICKNESS"[10].

This suggests a hierarchy such as 'entity' > 'body' > 'thing' > 'phenomenon' > 'object' by generalness, where 'existence' is the most general word; or, 'object' > 'phenomenon' > 'thing' > 'body' > 'entity' by preciseness.

The choice of general order is 'entity' > 'source' > 'object' > 'phenomena'.

"The central question a linguistic theory of meaning must address is that of how finitely many lexical meanings can be systematically combined to yield indefinitely many sentential meanings."[9]

"What words mean is a matter of the systematic effects they have on the semantic (and pragmatic) properties of (utterances of) sentences containing them, properties like entailments, presuppositions, incompatibility, and perhaps some kind of implicatures."[9]

"The ultimate test of any proposed word meaning must be its contribution to the meaning of sentences containing it and the meaning-relations among such sentences."[9]

Inconsistent metrics are meaningless. "The problem with inconsistent metrics is that it leads to comparisons that are useless. Teams cannot be compared with one another, and changes cannot be selected for implementation because the impact of those changes will be unknown."[13]

"One organization would compare product teams with what seemed like a single, common metric. Upon closer examination, it was determined that teams were measuring differently. The metric became meaningless for cross-team comparisons. Worse, the goal of trying to establish best practices from the better performing teams became impossible because it was unclear which teams were actually performing better."[13]

"Before choosing metrics that determine what decisions and changes should be made, ensure that consistency is enforced. Software tooling is one way to enforce this if everyone uses the same tools, but tooling is only one part of the puzzle."[13]

"When we fail to find meaning, it creates a void within, which is felt as anxiety, depression, despair, confusion and the deeper experience of anomie (meaningless-ness) (Esping, 2010)."[14]

"[S]ometimes people experience meaninglessness counter this with work, relationships, and building a sense of self".[15]

"Paradoxically, Frankl believed that this very sense of anomie - that one's life is meaningless, is evidence of how fundamental our need to find meaning is. The awareness of anomie becomes a felt need, which motivates the desire to find and create meaning in life (Frankl, 1959)."[14]